Mathis v. United States
| Decision Date | 14 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 231-67.,231-67. |
| Citation | 183 Ct. Cl. 145,394 F.2d 519 |
| Parties | Robert T. MATHIS, Sr. v. The UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Robert T. Mathis, Sr., pro se.
Charles M. Munnecke, Washington, D. C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen., Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., for defendant.
Before COWEN, Chief Judge, and LARAMORE, DURFEE, DAVIS, COLLINS, SKELTON, and NICHOLS, Judges.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
In his petition for rehearing, plaintiff gives us the details of an attempt to send a petition to this court before limitations expired on September 26, 1966, details which he could have presented to us previously, but did not. He now says that he handed copies of a petition (addressed to this court) to the prison notary at Florida State Prison on September 6, 1966, and had them notarized on that date. He attaches a photostat of that petition, including the notarization. He implies, though he does not say explicitly, that he requested that the petition be sent to the court and served on the Government. He does say expressly that other papers he tried to send from that prison to various officials and courts were never mailed by the authorities to whom he gave them, and also (with reference to supporting documentation) that he was punished "so many times for being a `jail house lawyer' and `counselor' that he just couldn't take the risk of further prison punishment" by telling this court that the prison officials had delayed transmitting his papers.
In these circumstances — particularly the handwritten "complaint" to this court notarized on September 6, 1966 — we now think that a trial should be had on the issue of whether plaintiff attempted to send, from jail, a petition to this court on or before September 26, 1966. Cf. Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139, 84 S.Ct. 1689, 12 L.Ed.2d 760 (1964). Plaintiff is very tardy in supporting his claim that he made this attempt, but he is a non-lawyer acting pro se and we shall not treat his case as if he had been represented by counsel.1
Accordingly, we vacate our prior order granting defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissing the petition as barred by limitations. Instead, we deny the defendant's motion without prejudice, and remand the case to the trial commissioner for a trial or other proceeding on the issue of whether plaintiff attempted properly to transmit, from jail, a petition to this court on or before September 26, 1966. The commissioner will report the facts and circumstances bearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craycroft v. Ferrall
...(1961); Reed v. Franke, 297 F.2d 17 (4th Cir. 1961); cf. Mathis v. United States, 391 F.2d 938, 939 n. 1, vacated on other grounds, 394 F.2d 519 (Ct.Cl.1968).2 There is no indication from the language of the implementing statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1552, that the Board for Correction lacks power t......
-
Martinez v. U.S., 99-5163.
... Page 1295 ... 333 F.3d 1295 ... Gabriel J. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, ... UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ... No. 99-5163 ... United States Court of Appeals, Federal ... 920, 922 (1982); Vincin v. United States, 199 Ct.Cl. 762, 468 F.2d 930, 933 (1972); Mathis v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl. 145, 391 F.2d ... Page 1304 ... 938, 939 (1968). If the plaintiff ... ...
-
Perez v. United States
...States, 199 Ct. Cl. 762, 468 F.2d 930, 933 (1972); and Mathis v. United States, 183 Ct. Cl. 145, 391 F.2d 938, 939, vacated, 183 Ct. Cl. 145, 394 F.2d 519 (1968)). The statute of limitations contained at 28 U.S.C. § 2501, however, can be suspended in limited circumstances. For purposes of 2......
-
Patterson v. Stancliff
...to Board not required); see also Mathis v. United States, 391 F.2d 938, 939 n. 1, 183 Ct.Cl. 145, vacated on other grounds, 394 F.2d 519, 183 Ct.Cl. 145 (1968); Girault v. United States, 135 F.Supp. 521, 133 Ct.Cl. 135 4 Compare Parisi v. Davidson, 435 F.2d 299, 304 (9th Cir. 1970) and Mols......